Literature DB >> 17264704

Viewpoint: A challenge to academic health centers and the National Institutes of Health to prevent unintended gender bias in the selection of clinical and translational science award leaders.

Molly Carnes1, Carole Bland.   

Abstract

In controlled studies, both men and women preferentially select men over women for leadership positions, even when credentials are identical and despite field studies demonstrating women's equivalent or slightly better leadership effectiveness. The assumption that men will make better leaders than women is attributed to the pervasive existence of unconscious stereotypes that characterize both men and leaders as agentic or action oriented and women as dependent. The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap is a novel, prestigious award that will place considerable power in the hands of one principal investigator-conditions that predict activation of bias in favor of selecting male leaders. The authors review research supporting this assertion. To mitigate the impact of this bias and broaden the pool of potential leaders for this transformative initiative, the authors offer the following suggestions. To academic health centers they suggest (1) internal search committees comprised of at least 35% women that establish a priori the desired qualities for the CTSA leader and broadly solicit applicants, (2) explicit specification of the full range of desirable skills of a CTSA leader, and (3) systematic efforts to increase awareness of the negative impact of unconscious gender bias on women's advancement. To the NIH they suggest (1) the new multiple principal investigator rule for the CTSA program, (2) a statement in the request for applications (RFA) encouraging diversity among principal investigators, (3) repetition in the RFA of the public NIH statement of the importance of work life balance for young investigators, and (4) constitution of study sections with at least 35% women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17264704     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31802d939f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  18 in total

1.  Sex Differences in Faculty Rank Among Academic Cardiologists in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel M Blumenthal; Andrew R Olenski; Robert W Yeh; Doreen DeFaria Yeh; Amy Sarma; Ada C Stefanescu Schmidt; Malissa J Wood; Anupam B Jena
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Examining faculty awards for gender equity and evolving values.

Authors:  Stephanie Abbuhl; Mirar N Bristol; Hera Ashfaq; Patricia Scott; Lucy Wolf Tuton; Anne R Cappola; Seema S Sonnad
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-08-29       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Authors:  Anna Kaatz; You-Geon Lee; Aaron Potvien; Wairimu Magua; Amarette Filut; Anupama Bhattacharya; Renee Leatherberry; Xiaojin Zhu; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution.

Authors:  Anna Kaatz; Wairimu Magua; David R Zimmerman; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.

Authors:  Wairimu Magua; Xiaojin Zhu; Anupama Bhattacharya; Amarette Filut; Aaron Potvien; Renee Leatherberry; You-Geon Lee; Madeline Jens; Dastagiri Malikireddy; Molly Carnes; Anna Kaatz
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Women's health and women's leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling?

Authors:  Molly Carnes; Claudia Morrissey; Stacie E Geller
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Advancing Women's Health and Women's Leadership With Endowed Chairs in Women's Health.

Authors:  Molly Carnes; Paula Johnson; Wendy Klein; Marjorie Jenkins; C Noel Bairey Merz
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 8.  Why is John More Likely to Become Department Chair Than Jennifer?

Authors:  Molly Carnes; Christie M Bartels; Anna Kaatz; Christine Kolehmainen
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  2015

9.  Systems of career influences: a conceptual model for evaluating the professional development of women in academic medicine.

Authors:  Diane Magrane; Deborah Helitzer; Page Morahan; Shine Chang; Katharine Gleason; Gina Cardinali; Chih-Chieh Wu
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Sex Differences in Academic Rank and Publication Rate at Top-Ranked US Neurology Programs.

Authors:  Mollie McDermott; Douglas J Gelb; Kelsey Wilson; Megan Pawloski; James F Burke; Anita V Shelgikar; Zachary N London
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 18.302

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.